Breivik trial: Detective should be sacked

It is astounding that the lead detective in the Breivik case that concerns the mass murder of 69 innocent Norwegian children with many more injured and maimed for life can say that a piece of evidence they should be looking for to prove other people’s involvement in the case is like looking for a needle in a haystack so they are not going to bother looking for it.

Isn’t the solving of a single murder sometimes like looking for a needle in a haystack?

This is a bit different from a single murder.

What must the families of the dead and injured think that the lead detective in the case will not fully investigate their children’s murders?

Unless they are happy with Breivik the son of a former Government diplomat, step son of a former Army Major and best friend of a Ministry of Defence lawyer being a “solo terrorist” connected to no one who is ‘insane’ ‘official’ line even though the police will not fully investigate the case.

Any detective who can make such a public statement should be sacked immediately because how does it reflect on the public institution he is supposed to be serving and the competence of his fellow detectives?

He was picked for his role specifically either because he is supposed to be one of the best in his field or because he is compliant to those above him.

He is obviously not the best in his field to make such an unprofessional statement so the second sounds more likely.

He made his statement in a court of law in front of the World’s media as part of Breivik’s trial as well.

How does it look and sound (think about it)?

Breivik for some reason wants the Norwegian police to discover the identity of his real English ‘mentor’ which is why he wrote the person into his manifesto which would have been the only thing left behind after what he believed was his martyrdom mission. Since he is still alive and in custody he has claimed the police will find the link they are looking for if they look through his Facebook accounts. He has no reason to make the job easier for them by naming the person because they obviously have not offered him the deal for his mother’s immunity from prosecution, but he still wants them to discover this person’s existence for some reason which is unknown at this moment in time.

The lead detective has stated that they will not be looking in his Facebook accounts.

Work that one out.

I do not believe Breivik has made any such claim over the investigation of the case, that the Norwegian police would be able to find a provable link to his English ‘mentor’ so this is a critical line of investigation that should be fully investigated because it comes from Breivik himself.

He has said “look in my Facebook accounts and you will find a link”.

And the Norwegian polices response is that it would be like looking for a needle in a haystack so they are not going to bother looking.

Is it only me that finds this an extraordinary situation.

If they go looking and find the needle it will be attached to a thread and then where would that thread lead? To his English ‘mentor’ and beyond.

The Norwegian’s in control of the case do not want to find the English ‘mentor’ because it would completely contradict their long standing ‘official’ story surrounding Breivik and shatter the public perceptions over the case and this is what they do not want for some reason (hidden in plain sight) which is why the case has been closed down, covered up and white washed from the very beginning.

Imagine the crisis within the Norwegian Establishment and political landscape of the Country if it was proven that elements within the ruling Labour regime have conducted a State sanctioned cover up over the Breivik case that concerns the mass murder of a group of innocent Norwegian children. People would then question why and for what reason and it can only mean complicity on some level.

Left-wing blaming it on the Right-wing for pre-planned political results.

The families of Utoya might accept this but I do not because it means whoever is involved with Breivik gets away with setting be up to be their fall guy after the events in Norway last July and I will not accept that until every line of investigation is investigated.

Even if it is only sharing my thoughts and opinions here on this blog as part of the discourse over this case that I was dragged into for some reason that I am trying to get to the bottom of on an ‘official’ basis.

I was alleged to be the English ‘mentor’ so someone must be reading my words.

Being British and knowing how the British police work which is what you would have expected from Norway, if they knew there was a needle in a haystack or even the prospect of a needle in a haystack that would solve a murder enquiry then they would go looking for it with as much resources were necessary and not give up until it was found or proven beyond doubt not to exist.

This is how you prove or disprove lines of investigation and until fully investigated they can never state an ‘official’ conclusion and then take that into the court room as a prosecution case against someone irrespective of the crimes they have committed but this is not the case in Norway. They state conclusions on personal opinions or orders from above that they then take into the court room in front of the World’s media even though they are still investigating the case (talk about Breivik being psychotic).

How is that a case of a Democratic Government upholding the ‘rule of law’ in what is supposed to be a European Democracy?

The British police would never say they are not going to bother looking for the evidence because it is too big a task, especially not after being told by the suspect himself that they will find the link they are looking for, and it being part of an enquiry over the mass murder of innocent children.

No task should be too big in getting to the bottom of the truth in the interest of justice in the scheme of things.

This obviously separates the 2. A First World police force and Third World police force, or a corrupt State infrastructure covering everything up to hide from the truth because of what the truth means.

What are the political ruling class in Norway doing with all of that National wealth that makes them the 3rd richest Nation on Earth?

Obviously not spending it on their Police force or National Security.

The Norwegian police were in a dilemma going into the trial as witnesses because it is there ‘official’ conclusions that the State’s prosecutors are now propagating in the court room of Breivik being a “solo terrorist connected to no one which was what the first State sanctioned psychiatric report 7 months ago was based upon so they have to now dismiss all of the unanswered questions surrounding the case because it conflicts with the State’s ‘official’ case against Breivik and undermines everything.

The result of a dilemma…

Admitting that the unanswered questions need to be fully investigated in the case would mean the ‘official’ conclusion is flawed, then that means the prosecutor’s case along with the first psychiatric report are both flawed too and they are standing in front of the World’s media with their State sanctioned case.

The dilemma…

If there are unanswered questions that need to be answered then it is flawed whether or not the Norwegian police state an ‘official’ conclusion that’s just the basic fact of the matter that anyone with a brain can see, especially after Breivik has claimed himself they will find the evidence they are looking for if they look for it which is CRITICAL to discovering the truth but they are refusing to look for it.

The prosecution story surrounding Breivik, the first psychiatric report and the police’s ‘official’ conclusion are all fundamentally flawed based upon the facts of the matter. That’s just basic logic.

Who is there who dares to challenge this on an ‘official’ basis though?

I thought lawyers were there to defend the ‘rule of law’.

The detective in court admitted that the investigation is still ongoing and that there are 50 police officers still working on the case. The judge challenged him on this, whether or not it was usual that an investigation was still ongoing whilst the trial is taking place and he said yes.

How can you have a trial and prosecution case against someone where you state an ‘official’ story surrounding the case against the accused who is then prosecuted on that basis if the evidence has not been fully investigated which if investigated could conflict with the ‘official’ story?

That seems very perplexing in my mind.

This might just be a case of Norwegian justice though and how they conduct the exercise of the ‘rule of law’ in that Country which is a lesson for all international observers of the Norwegian justice system.

The Norwegian police have stated that there are 3 witnesses still not identified from within the manifesto. 2 women and the English ‘mentor’ ‘Richard the Lionheart’, along with Breivik’s Liberian contact who he sent money to.

I gave the Norwegian police a detailed interview after being accused of being the English ‘mentor’ Breivik speaks about so there is a legal document as part of the case against Breivik.

Has everyone in that legal document been interviewed to prove or disprove my claims?

If not then that is a critical line of investigation that has not been fully investigated that any future enquiry will have no alternative but to look into and ask why it was not investigated and if proven would completely contradict the ‘official’ story surrounding Breivik.

I stated in the very beginning that Alan Ayling aka Alan Lake was the person behind setting me up and gave my reasons which meant that he was the English ‘mentor’ directly connected to Breivik.

He had a mickey mouse interview about his possible role as the English ‘mentor’ that probably lasted 1 hour.

I was a voluntary guest in the Norwegian polices custody in Norway over the Breivik case for 3 days and gave a voluntary 15 hour interview with no lawyer present which is completely different from a mickey mouse 1 hour interview about being the possible English ‘mentor’.

Did Ayling have lawyers present during his mickey mouse interview?

All evidence 10 months on proves that my first assertion about Ayling was completely correct only no action has been taken.

The most striking piece of evidence is; who is his friend ‘Richard the Lionheart’?

His interview is part of the legal documentation in the Breivik case so did he mention this person’s identity or whether or not he existed when he had his mickey mouse interview?

Anyone who has access to the legal documentation will know the answer to that question.

If not then Ayling is cornered, along with there being 2 independent witnesses apart from myself who must be interviewed who can confirm this person’s existence and possibly his identity, along with an email from one of the independent witnesses.

Considering Breivik claims his English ‘mentor’ is called ‘Richard the Lionheart’, I gave a witness statement to the Norwegian police about my belief of Ayling being behind Breivik setting me up to be the fall guy for his atrocities and there being a person directly connected to Ayling who calls himself ‘Richard the Lionheart’ online the revelation of this person’s identity is crucial to the whole investigation.

Yet the Norwegian police have not ascertained his identity and revealed it to the public yet (to my knowledge).

Why not?

They say they are still looking to trace this person’s identity and you have a direct line of enquiry but it has not been fully pursued yet just like with Breivik’s Facebook accounts.

Yet the Norwegian police want the World to believe that Breivik the son of a former Government diplomat, step son of a former Army Major and best friend of a lawyer from the Ministry of Defence is a “solo terrorist” connected to no one.

The truth shatters that perception they have created in the minds of the public.

They say there are people who need to be re-interviewed in the case so you can only hope in the interest of ‘truth & justice’ that Ayling is one of those people to be re-interviewed so as to reveal his friends real identity then this can either be added to the whole case and see how it fits or dismissed from the case.

Either way it is a question that needs answering.

One thing is for sure is that the current investigation team should be completely changed when any future interviews take place because they are the ones who are now presenting a fundamentally flawed Norwegian State case to the World so it is quite obvious that they do not want to change this and make themselves look bad so would not endevour to get to the bottom of the truth because it conflicts with their flawed ‘official’ conclusions.

Their professional reputations are on the line along with their gold plated pension schemes so they do not want their ‘official’ conclusion to be shattered because what would it mean? They are happy with their ‘official’ story because anything else undermines everything, the States ‘official’ story being propagated by the prosecution in the court room in front of the World’s media and the first State sanctioned psychiatric report.

They have their reputations to think about just like me, which is a bit different from the memory the Utoya victims the families have to think about.

Which is more important?

In my personal opinion any future investigation to pursue those final lines of enquiry should be undertaken by a new set of investigative eyes that are willing to look for the needle in the haystack and not perceive it as a job to big for them, and they should be endorsed by all of the opposition political parties in Norway so then there cannot be any claims of a Government cover up.

It is called neutrality…

If all high level actors dealing with the Breivik case are all State appointed then there will always be the claim of a Government cover up which is why those final lines of enquiry should be fully investigated by impartial eyes.

How can anyone disagree with this when ‘truth & justice’ expects it?

Democracy in action and the King of Norway should order it.

That’s my opinion anyway and there will be a full investigation after this is all over where these questions will need to be addressed and the political background of all of the State actors in this case will need to be known to see whether or not there is a common theme being played out.

As it stands the current ‘official’ State story and prosecution case against Breivik is fundamentally flawed so you naturally have to question why?

The only answer I have is that there is a State sanctioned cover up taking place and then you question why and for what reason and the political background of all of the high level State actors in the case will either prove or disprove that claim.

Further reading: Hidden in plain sight